Sir Robilar
First Post
So I have been reading the latest playtest material and I’m wondering about many of the new elements included. The designers have repeatedly stated that one of their important goals is that every rules mechanic in D&D Next has a direct connection to something in the game world. I’m completely in favor of this because I have experienced the awkward situation as a DM that I couldn’t adequately explain to my players what a certain rules element represented in the world. For example, in one game session an opponent of theirs was using a special action to give a bonus to allied creatures. However, there was no clear description of what this actually meant, how it looked, and it only seemed to have some sort of meta-connection to what was happening, as in „he sure is inspiring to the others“.
Here are some examples of what I mean from the current playtest material. I’m sorry If this comes over as a rant at times. I have to say that I was fairly happy with where the game was going before, but this topic really bugs me... To decrease the severity of the rant I will try to include ideas of what kinds of alternative rules I would prefer. I'd be really interested in your opinion on these thoughts.
From the Bestiary:
„Mob tactics“. In the description it says that the creature chooses an opponent. Other allies that also have this trait gain a bonus to their attack and damage against the chosen opponent. However, there is no explanation of what is happening and I’m struggling to find an answer. I guess what it means is that the creature isn’t actually choosing anyone, but is itself attacking the target creature, and the bonus it’s allies get represents this. If it is meant like that I don’t like it at all. In my book, when a creature is attacking another creature, it should make an attack roll. Seems to me that this rule was included to reduce the number of dice rolls when many creatures of one kind attack a single foe. If this is the case, I would very much favour seperate stat blocks for single creatures and for swarms of smaller variants of the same creature type.
There are several traits that function just like this. The gnoll is „Savage“, but only when it can see two other creatures with the Savage trait within 30 feet. Why? Why is the gnoll incapable of attacking with all his savagery, when he fights alone and is up against a helpless victim? Is he somehow restrained in his rage when he is alone?
The Hobgoblin has a „Disciplined“ action. It chooses a foe within it’s reach, and the next attack against this foe from his ally has advantage. But what is the Hobgoblin doing? And why is it best explained with the word „Disciplined“? A much better way of explaining things like these can be seen in the Guardian Specialty, where it says that you throw your shield between a creature and the ally that it tries to attack, giving the creature disadvantage.
Continuing with the Hobgoblin, it has the „Steadfast“ trait, meaning it cannot be frightened while an ally is within 30 feet. Why not? This may make sense when the Hobgoblins encounter the Player Characters, but does it make sense when two Hobgoblins encounter Cthulhu?
The same with other traits and actions like „Commander“, „Protector“ and the minotaurs „Armor Pearcing 4“ where the minotaur’s foe takes damage even though he wasn’t hit from the attack (something which I personally can’t stand).
Summing up, what I see a lot in this iteration of the playtest is monster design where slapping a description like „Disciplined“ or „Savage“ onto a rules mechanic is ok and enough to explain what is happening in the world. I find this a problematic design approach and dearly hope they will reconsider. I’m also not a fan of heavy use of exception-based game design as I believe it is seldom the best way to represent a precise action that a creature is capable of.
Races:
Not much here that bugs me. The only thing I find hard to wrap my head around is the Halfling’s Nimbleness. The Halfling can move through spaces of creatures that are larger than it. I find it awkward to accept that every Halfling in the world could do this against every larger creature.
Also, the Stout Halfing’s „Fearless“, where he takes an action to end the frightened condition. What action does the Halfling take and how does it look like? I don’t like it when the rules tell us that something is an action when it isn’t really an action. And if something isn’t an action, it shouldn’t be resolved by taking an action. I’d prefer an approach where the Halfling can always take a second Save against fear effects or something like that, as it wouldn’t force the player to play out how his Halfling shakes off his fear, when it’s really hard to explain how that would look like. And even harder to explain why he couldn’t have done it earlier.
Spells:
What I dislike considering associated or dissociated mechanics is the fact that you can cast some spells as Rituals and others not. This seems to be tacked on from the designer's point of view but it is hard to explain from the POV of a character that lives in the D&D world. At least I would hope for a sentence of description why this is how it is, even if it was as cheesy as „Only the secret caste of the Ritual Masters knew how to bind a spell into a ritual, but they have crossed beyond the ether aeons ago“.
I’m also having a hard time to accept that some spells can be cast in rounds where the caster also does some other action. If I was a caster I would ask myself why I can't cast my other spells and also do something else during the casting. I could live with it if there was some basic mechanic at the base of things, such as „all cantrips are uncomplicated and fast, they can be cast alongside another spell or action“. Or if this quick casting could be done with all Cleric spells from the War domain. But when something like that is not present, a player could always confront his/her DM with questions such as „So you’re telling me I can cast Battle Psalm, a 2nd Level enchanment, and attack in the same round, but I can’t do the same with Radiant Lance, a Minor evocation?“
I dislike that some spells only affect creatures with a certain hit point maximum. I wish my players wouldn’t have to wonder about how many hit points the monsters have (or Hit Dice, which, although closer to how old editions of D&D did it, I wouldn’t find much of an improvement). Having to think about Hit Point breaks the player’s immersion and tells them to think about monsters from a „we’re playing a game and this is my opponent“ point of view. I would absolutely prefer it if such rules were in the hands of the DM. If, for example, there would be an optional rule like „the DM should consider giving all monsters with 3 HD or more the chance to save against enchantment effects of Spell Level 3 and below, and all monsters with 6 HD or more immunity to any enchantment effects below Spell Level 6“.
Other than that I really like most of the spells, especially toning down potential game-breakers as Suggestion.
The Fighter:
At first I really liked the new Fighter mechanic. During one oft he Gencon Panels Jeremy Crawford said that the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG had been an inspiration for them and this mechanic speaks for that. When comparing the two distinct mechanics, however, I find that I prefer the one in DCC.
The DCC RPG’s „Mighty Deed of Arms“ mechanic allows the Fighter to do ANY combat maneuver he can think of in addition to an attack, as long as his Deed die rolls a 3 or more. The type of the deed die increases by level. And whether the Deed succeeds or not, the Fighter always gets the bonus damage from the Deed die. The Mighty Deed rules give some advice on how the maneuver should manifest, depending on the Level of the Fighter. But in the end the DM is the sole arbiter to rule over what the maneuver does. A first Level Fighter could disarm a Goblin or other small creature with it, but maybe not a creature of man-size or a larger one. But, he wouldn’t be constrained to just disarming the goblin, he could also knock him back, tumble over him, overrun it, and so on, all at first level. At 9th level the DM might rule that the Fighter could do all these things with a Titan. For players that don’t want to think about a different combat maneuver each round, the rules encourage the player to give their Fighter one iconic maneuver, that he does each round by default, if he doesn’t say differently. In practice I found that this simple stunt mechanic greatly immerses the Fighter’s player in the action and lets him think about the battle in a creative way.
This iteration of the D&D Fighter, in comparison, can only make the combat maneuvers that he has mastered by aquiring them with a feat. So at first level he could protect an ally from a goblin’s attack, but he couldn’t knock the goblin down until he reaches 5th level. I find this sad since I would prefer a mechanic that lets him do all the cool things from the beginning on, only with weaker opponents. The Next Fighter player's immersion would also be more tactical and along the lines of „is there a benefit of knocking the goblin down or should I just go for max damage?“ In practice I expect to see many players that always go for max damage. On the plus side however, the Combat Superiority mechanic is very reliable.
( As a quick afterword, I’m not a native speaker and although I can usually convey the basic message I’m trying to make, I find it hard to explain myself as precise as I would like to. Please consider this. )
Here are some examples of what I mean from the current playtest material. I’m sorry If this comes over as a rant at times. I have to say that I was fairly happy with where the game was going before, but this topic really bugs me... To decrease the severity of the rant I will try to include ideas of what kinds of alternative rules I would prefer. I'd be really interested in your opinion on these thoughts.
From the Bestiary:
„Mob tactics“. In the description it says that the creature chooses an opponent. Other allies that also have this trait gain a bonus to their attack and damage against the chosen opponent. However, there is no explanation of what is happening and I’m struggling to find an answer. I guess what it means is that the creature isn’t actually choosing anyone, but is itself attacking the target creature, and the bonus it’s allies get represents this. If it is meant like that I don’t like it at all. In my book, when a creature is attacking another creature, it should make an attack roll. Seems to me that this rule was included to reduce the number of dice rolls when many creatures of one kind attack a single foe. If this is the case, I would very much favour seperate stat blocks for single creatures and for swarms of smaller variants of the same creature type.
There are several traits that function just like this. The gnoll is „Savage“, but only when it can see two other creatures with the Savage trait within 30 feet. Why? Why is the gnoll incapable of attacking with all his savagery, when he fights alone and is up against a helpless victim? Is he somehow restrained in his rage when he is alone?
The Hobgoblin has a „Disciplined“ action. It chooses a foe within it’s reach, and the next attack against this foe from his ally has advantage. But what is the Hobgoblin doing? And why is it best explained with the word „Disciplined“? A much better way of explaining things like these can be seen in the Guardian Specialty, where it says that you throw your shield between a creature and the ally that it tries to attack, giving the creature disadvantage.
Continuing with the Hobgoblin, it has the „Steadfast“ trait, meaning it cannot be frightened while an ally is within 30 feet. Why not? This may make sense when the Hobgoblins encounter the Player Characters, but does it make sense when two Hobgoblins encounter Cthulhu?
The same with other traits and actions like „Commander“, „Protector“ and the minotaurs „Armor Pearcing 4“ where the minotaur’s foe takes damage even though he wasn’t hit from the attack (something which I personally can’t stand).
Summing up, what I see a lot in this iteration of the playtest is monster design where slapping a description like „Disciplined“ or „Savage“ onto a rules mechanic is ok and enough to explain what is happening in the world. I find this a problematic design approach and dearly hope they will reconsider. I’m also not a fan of heavy use of exception-based game design as I believe it is seldom the best way to represent a precise action that a creature is capable of.
Races:
Not much here that bugs me. The only thing I find hard to wrap my head around is the Halfling’s Nimbleness. The Halfling can move through spaces of creatures that are larger than it. I find it awkward to accept that every Halfling in the world could do this against every larger creature.
Also, the Stout Halfing’s „Fearless“, where he takes an action to end the frightened condition. What action does the Halfling take and how does it look like? I don’t like it when the rules tell us that something is an action when it isn’t really an action. And if something isn’t an action, it shouldn’t be resolved by taking an action. I’d prefer an approach where the Halfling can always take a second Save against fear effects or something like that, as it wouldn’t force the player to play out how his Halfling shakes off his fear, when it’s really hard to explain how that would look like. And even harder to explain why he couldn’t have done it earlier.
Spells:
What I dislike considering associated or dissociated mechanics is the fact that you can cast some spells as Rituals and others not. This seems to be tacked on from the designer's point of view but it is hard to explain from the POV of a character that lives in the D&D world. At least I would hope for a sentence of description why this is how it is, even if it was as cheesy as „Only the secret caste of the Ritual Masters knew how to bind a spell into a ritual, but they have crossed beyond the ether aeons ago“.
I’m also having a hard time to accept that some spells can be cast in rounds where the caster also does some other action. If I was a caster I would ask myself why I can't cast my other spells and also do something else during the casting. I could live with it if there was some basic mechanic at the base of things, such as „all cantrips are uncomplicated and fast, they can be cast alongside another spell or action“. Or if this quick casting could be done with all Cleric spells from the War domain. But when something like that is not present, a player could always confront his/her DM with questions such as „So you’re telling me I can cast Battle Psalm, a 2nd Level enchanment, and attack in the same round, but I can’t do the same with Radiant Lance, a Minor evocation?“
I dislike that some spells only affect creatures with a certain hit point maximum. I wish my players wouldn’t have to wonder about how many hit points the monsters have (or Hit Dice, which, although closer to how old editions of D&D did it, I wouldn’t find much of an improvement). Having to think about Hit Point breaks the player’s immersion and tells them to think about monsters from a „we’re playing a game and this is my opponent“ point of view. I would absolutely prefer it if such rules were in the hands of the DM. If, for example, there would be an optional rule like „the DM should consider giving all monsters with 3 HD or more the chance to save against enchantment effects of Spell Level 3 and below, and all monsters with 6 HD or more immunity to any enchantment effects below Spell Level 6“.
Other than that I really like most of the spells, especially toning down potential game-breakers as Suggestion.
The Fighter:
At first I really liked the new Fighter mechanic. During one oft he Gencon Panels Jeremy Crawford said that the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG had been an inspiration for them and this mechanic speaks for that. When comparing the two distinct mechanics, however, I find that I prefer the one in DCC.
The DCC RPG’s „Mighty Deed of Arms“ mechanic allows the Fighter to do ANY combat maneuver he can think of in addition to an attack, as long as his Deed die rolls a 3 or more. The type of the deed die increases by level. And whether the Deed succeeds or not, the Fighter always gets the bonus damage from the Deed die. The Mighty Deed rules give some advice on how the maneuver should manifest, depending on the Level of the Fighter. But in the end the DM is the sole arbiter to rule over what the maneuver does. A first Level Fighter could disarm a Goblin or other small creature with it, but maybe not a creature of man-size or a larger one. But, he wouldn’t be constrained to just disarming the goblin, he could also knock him back, tumble over him, overrun it, and so on, all at first level. At 9th level the DM might rule that the Fighter could do all these things with a Titan. For players that don’t want to think about a different combat maneuver each round, the rules encourage the player to give their Fighter one iconic maneuver, that he does each round by default, if he doesn’t say differently. In practice I found that this simple stunt mechanic greatly immerses the Fighter’s player in the action and lets him think about the battle in a creative way.
This iteration of the D&D Fighter, in comparison, can only make the combat maneuvers that he has mastered by aquiring them with a feat. So at first level he could protect an ally from a goblin’s attack, but he couldn’t knock the goblin down until he reaches 5th level. I find this sad since I would prefer a mechanic that lets him do all the cool things from the beginning on, only with weaker opponents. The Next Fighter player's immersion would also be more tactical and along the lines of „is there a benefit of knocking the goblin down or should I just go for max damage?“ In practice I expect to see many players that always go for max damage. On the plus side however, the Combat Superiority mechanic is very reliable.
( As a quick afterword, I’m not a native speaker and although I can usually convey the basic message I’m trying to make, I find it hard to explain myself as precise as I would like to. Please consider this. )
